Idiot christians

QUOTE

http://christianitydevilworship.blogspot.com/

October 23, 2009

Idiot christians

What is up with these Christians? These idiots see devils everywhere they go. For them gods of other religions are either false or are devils and their own god is true god. They say that Hinduism is devil worship. Anybody who knows something about Hinduism knows very well that there is not even a single entity in Hinduism which can be compared to the devil. The only evil entities in Hinduism were the various demons which were killed by various incarnations of Vishnu and Shiva. Unlike the christian god which they claim to be all powerful but strangely is powerless to kill the devil, Hindu Gods are powerful enough to kill the demons.

Well christians get this in your stupid heads that those people who see devils everywhere

(http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g08htHindusAtFatima_Vennari.html

http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/060304rit.asp)

are the actual devil worshipers not us Hindus. The logic is simple. If you love God you will see God everywhere and in everything, but if you love the devil you will see devil everywhere and in everyone.

Well it also turns out that christians are not only devil worshipers but are idiots as well. I mean they actually believe that some rotting foul-smelling corpse of a dead arab hanging from a stick can actually save them. How is it possible? They say that this so called jesus got himself hung from a cross by getting his testicles nailed to it 2000 years ago to save humanity, but they forget that a person who could not even save himself, how is he supposed to save others?

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Socratic dialectic

See also: Socratic method

In Plato's dialogues and other Socratic dialogues, Socrates attempts to examine someone's beliefs, at times even first principles or premises by which we all reason and argue. Socrates typically argues by cross-examining his interlocutor's claims and premises in order to draw out a contradiction or inconsistency among them. According to Plato, the rational detection of error amounts to finding the proof of the antithesis.^[11] However, important as this objective is, the principal aim of Socratic activity seems to be to improve the soul of his interlocutors, by freeing them from unrecognized errors.

For example, in the Euthyphro, Socrates asks Euthyphro to provide a definition of piety. Euthyphro replies that the pious is that which is loved by the gods. But, Socrates also has Euthyphro agreeing that the gods are quarrelsome and their quarrels, like human quarrels, concern objects of love or hatred. Therefore, Socrates reasons, at least one thing exists which certain gods love but other gods hate. Again, Euthyphro agrees. Socrates concludes that if Euthyphro's definition of piety is acceptable, then there must exist at least one thing which is both pious and impious (as it is both loved and hated by the gods) — which Euthyphro admits is absurd. Thus, Euthyphro is brought to a realization by this dialectical method that his definition of piety is not sufficiently elaborate, thus wrong.